1. Introduction The approach of the study is appropriate. However, the background could be more condensed and more information concerning cooperation behaviour in the course of time, group size, awareness of the importance of information, costs of entering information, use-related bonus systems, feedback and recommendations and group awareness, is expected. The purpose of the study need to state more clearly. Also the purpose of the study should be presented consistently both in abstract and in introduction. The research question could be spesified.
2. Materials and Methods The design is appropriate for the study. The descriptions of participants, data collection as well as analysis are needed to specify. If these have been described in previous articles, please cite to these studies.
3. Results The results are presented using a combination of text and figures. Figure texts are too long and need to be specified. Please, present in this section results only from this study without interpretation. In addition, move the results from other studies to the background.
4. Conclusion The conclusion is described in results and Practical Consequences sections. Please, describe them only in conclusion section.
5. Discussion Discussion based on relationship between the results and previous studies is needed. Also study limitations and ethical considerations needs to be described in the manuscript.
6. Title Title should be more informative.
7. Abstract The purpose of this paper should be presented consistently in abstract and introduction. The descriptions of the study design and primary methods used need to be presented more clearly. The key results and conclusions are described.
8. Final Analysis
List of three most important IMPROVEMENTS that are needed: background, methods, discussion
List of three most important STRENGHTS of this paper, which should not be lost in the process of revision: description of experimental environmental, important topic, writing style and language
WRITING STYLE and LANGUAGE Some long sentences.
In my view this paper should be placed in the following category:
ACCEPT: publish as it is
ACCEPT: but in of need further work as indicated in this review REVISE AND RESUBMIT: in need of major changes as indicated in this review
REJECT: for reasons indicated in this review
Reviewer’s Comments This is an interesting paper which reports the knowledge exchange as a social dilemma. This topic falls with the scope for me unknown/fictional journal. However, there are some issues I want to point out so that the manuscript is logical and can be considered for publication. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript and placing effort especially in the background, methods and discussion sections.
REVIEW - COMMENTS FROM REFEREES
1. Introduction
The approach of the study is appropriate. However, the background could be more condensed and more information concerning cooperation behaviour in the course of time, group size, awareness of the importance of information, costs of entering information, use-related bonus systems, feedback and recommendations and group awareness, is expected. The purpose of the study need to state more clearly. Also the purpose of the study should be presented consistently both in abstract and in introduction. The research question could be spesified.
2. Materials and Methods
The design is appropriate for the study. The descriptions of participants, data collection as well as analysis are needed to specify. If these have been described in previous articles, please cite to these studies.
3. Results
The results are presented using a combination of text and figures. Figure texts are too long and need to be specified. Please, present in this section results only from this study without interpretation. In addition, move the results from other studies to the background.
4. Conclusion
The conclusion is described in results and Practical Consequences sections. Please, describe them only in conclusion section.
5. Discussion
Discussion based on relationship between the results and previous studies is needed. Also study limitations and ethical considerations needs to be described in the manuscript.
6. Title
Title should be more informative.
7. Abstract
The purpose of this paper should be presented consistently in abstract and introduction. The descriptions of the study design and primary methods used need to be presented more clearly. The key results and conclusions are described.
8. Final Analysis
List of three most important IMPROVEMENTS that are needed: background, methods, discussion
List of three most important STRENGHTS of this paper, which should not be lost in the process of revision: description of experimental environmental, important topic, writing style and language
WRITING STYLE and LANGUAGE
Some long sentences.
In my view this paper should be placed in the following category:
ACCEPT: publish as it is
ACCEPT: but in of need further work as indicated in this review
REVISE AND RESUBMIT: in need of major changes as indicated in this review
REJECT: for reasons indicated in this review
Reviewer’s Comments
This is an interesting paper which reports the knowledge exchange as a social dilemma. This topic falls with the scope for me unknown/fictional journal. However, there are some issues I want to point out so that the manuscript is logical and can be considered for publication. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript and placing effort especially in the background, methods and discussion sections.